How Do YOU Define The 2nd Amendment?

A well regulated militia being nessesary for the security of a free state,


[that comma denotes the end of the statement prior to going on to the next]


The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

That's how I interpret it, exactly how it is written.

It says nothing about only those in a militia can keep arms.
It says that because a militia is nessesary, that people's right to keep and bear arms should not be infringed.

Gun control is infringing the right to keep and bear arms.
 
Lowaicue said:
If you measure civilisation by killings of innocent foreigners, by invasions of sovereign states, by child mortality, by education standards, by arrogance and ignorance why, yes, the US is civilised.
Have you ever read a newspaper?
Click to expand...
Innocent foreigners are killed in the USA?
Link up or shut up!
Child mortality? Parents responsibility, if you can't feed em, don't breed em, it's called responsibility.

Best educated people on earth, more college educated people in the USA than any other nation!

Stating a fact isn't arrogance.
The USA is the greatest nation on earth!
Lesser nations are crippled with hate and envy, hence the lies and propaganda!!
I've seen how you foriegners do things!!

USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! !!!!!
 
Dixie said:
Here, the problem is illustrated. We have an entire generation, or maybe two, who actually believe this to be a true statement, that we simply don't understand what the founding fathers intended or meant, and it's really up to us to decide. While deciding, it is perfectly okay to entertain the rhetoric of those who seek to destroy our constitutional freedoms. But those of us who have the intellect to actually study the Federalist Papers, realize the above statement is false, there is a way for us to be 100% correct, without having to talk to the writers, because the writers have talked to us. In fact, this country had a very robust debate over this issue, and our founding fathers penned volumes to explain in detail, what they intended and meant. These writings are sometimes difficult to understand, because they were written in the language of the day, which we struggle with. We start reading it, and quickly find ourselves confused and befuddled, not really comprehending what we're reading, so we just give up and accept what someone tells us they meant. Again, those of us who have the intellect to actually read and understand the material, have a leg up on everyone else, because we know 100% for certain, what the founding fathers were saying and what they meant.

Do you honestly think, the people who ratified the Constitution were not completely certain of the intent and meaning? Was there some great national debate at the time, over what the founding fathers wrote regarding the 2nd Amendment? Did certain people claim they meant one thing, while certain others claimed they meant something completely different? It's doubtful, to me, that we would have ever ratified something of such mystery. I am guessing, most everyone understood what was meant and intended at the time. Before the 2nd, there was certainly an argument over how much power the government should have and how much freedom should be allowed to the people, but this was addressed with the presentation of the 2nd Amendment. The "debate" was settled.

Now, we seem to want to disregard this fact, and pretend that we're still having this debate, and it's simply unclear what the founding fathers intended or meant. We dismiss the Federalist Papers because they are difficult to understand, and then we take the words of the constitution and apply our own comprehensions and understandings, in order to make it say what we want it to say. This results in a sharp contrast between those who do understand the original intent, because they have studied the Federalist Papers and took the time to comprehend the words, and those who simply are lazy and take the word of people who seek to destroy our constitutional freedoms. Amid this bizarre backdrop of people who are intelligent and people who aren't, we have the 'peacemakers' who think "no one is 100% correct unless they talk to the writers."
Click to expand...

The purpose of the Constitution has to be understood before any accurate interpretation is possible and that's where the Preamble comes in. "It states in general terms, and courts have referred to it as reliable evidence of, the Founding Fathers' intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning and what they hoped the Constitution would achieve." That's crystal clear. So, what did they hope the Constitution would achieve?

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Obviously, they wanted a good life for the citizens. Domestic tranquility. Provide for the general welfare. Secure the Blessings of Liberty. That was their goal and anything that worked against that goal, especially anything that harms the citizens, was not something the Founding Fathers would have promoted. Surely even the most un-scholarly can grasp that.

But let's say there are some who are unable to understand and believe the right to fire arms was to ensure the people could protect themselves against the Federal Government. Unless they have been under a rock for the last 60+ years they know about nuclear weapons so as far as protecting oneself against the government by means of force that is impossible. It's over. It's too late.

While people claim the government would never use nuclear weapons on it's own citizens there are numerous other weapons that can be used. Whether it's planes with heat seeking equipment able to detect "disruptors" in hiding like rats in a sewer or drones or microwave equipment that can literally cause the disruptors to stew in their own juices it's complete absurdity for a guy to think a fire arm will keep him free.

Government technology is so far ahead of what the average person can comprehend I suggest they take in a few science fiction shows to help familiarize themselves with how "disruptors" are dealt with.

Of course, some people come back with the argument that if what I say is correct why the extended warfare in numerous countries. Well, the answer is obvious. The longer a war lasts the more money the arms dealers make. That was/is as clear as day in Afghanistan. A surge. Withdraw. A surge. Withdraw. Don't crush the enemy. If one does the game is over and the whole idea is to keep the game going to the point where people search out countries that have opposition and brand them Al Qaeda. Hell, the Patriot Act does that with US citizens except for using the actual name. Citizens can now be held indefinitely. The government has already won. Packing a pistol may protect you from every day citizens but it sure as hell is not protection against the government. It offers as much protection as this blanket.

images




Comforting? Maybe. Protection? :lol:
 
apple0154 said:
The purpose of the Constitution has to be understood before any accurate interpretation is possible and that's where the Preamble comes in. "It states in general terms, and courts have referred to it as reliable evidence of, the Founding Fathers' intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning and what they hoped the Constitution would achieve." That's crystal clear. So, what did they hope the Constitution would achieve?

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Obviously, they wanted a good life for the citizens. Domestic tranquility. Provide for the general welfare. Secure the Blessings of Liberty. That was their goal and anything that worked against that goal, especially anything that harms the citizens, was not something the Founding Fathers would have promoted. Surely even the most un-scholarly can grasp that.

But let's say there are some who are unable to understand and believe the right to fire arms was to ensure the people could protect themselves against the Federal Government. Unless they have been under a rock for the last 60+ years they know about nuclear weapons so as far as protecting oneself against the government by means of force that is impossible. It's over. It's too late.

While people claim the government would never use nuclear weapons on it's own citizens there are numerous other weapons that can be used. Whether it's planes with heat seeking equipment able to detect "disruptors" in hiding like rats in a sewer or drones or microwave equipment that can literally cause the disruptors to stew in their own juices it's complete absurdity for a guy to think a fire arm will keep him free.

Government technology is so far ahead of what the average person can comprehend I suggest they take in a few science fiction shows to help familiarize themselves with how "disruptors" are dealt with.

Of course, some people come back with the argument that if what I say is correct why the extended warfare in numerous countries. Well, the answer is obvious. The longer a war lasts the more money the arms dealers make. That was/is as clear as day in Afghanistan. A surge. Withdraw. A surge. Withdraw. Don't crush the enemy. If one does the game is over and the whole idea is to keep the game going to the point where people search out countries that have opposition and brand them Al Qaeda. Hell, the Patriot Act does that with US citizens except for using the actual name. Citizens can now be held indefinitely. The government has already won. Packing a pistol may protect you from every day citizens but it sure as hell is not protection against the government. It offers as much protection as this blanket.

images




Comforting? Maybe. Protection? :lol:
Click to expand...

Interesting you substituted the word provide for the word promote in the Preamble. I am sure even a dumb ass such as yourself would know they mean different things. Was it an oversight or were you deliberately trying to deceive?
 
apple0154 said:
The purpose of the Constitution has to be understood before any accurate interpretation is possible and that's where the Preamble comes in. "It states in general terms, and courts have referred to it as reliable evidence of, the Founding Fathers' intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning and what they hoped the Constitution would achieve." That's crystal clear. So, what did they hope the Constitution would achieve?

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Obviously, they wanted a good life for the citizens. Domestic tranquility. Provide for the general welfare. Secure the Blessings of Liberty. That was their goal and anything that worked against that goal, especially anything that harms the citizens, was not something the Founding Fathers would have promoted. Surely even the most un-scholarly can grasp that.

But let's say there are some who are unable to understand and believe the right to fire arms was to ensure the people could protect themselves against the Federal Government. Unless they have been under a rock for the last 60+ years they know about nuclear weapons so as far as protecting oneself against the government by means of force that is impossible. It's over. It's too late.

While people claim the government would never use nuclear weapons on it's own citizens there are numerous other weapons that can be used. Whether it's planes with heat seeking equipment able to detect "disruptors" in hiding like rats in a sewer or drones or microwave equipment that can literally cause the disruptors to stew in their own juices it's complete absurdity for a guy to think a fire arm will keep him free.

Government technology is so far ahead of what the average person can comprehend I suggest they take in a few science fiction shows to help familiarize themselves with how "disruptors" are dealt with.

Of course, some people come back with the argument that if what I say is correct why the extended warfare in numerous countries. Well, the answer is obvious. The longer a war lasts the more money the arms dealers make. That was/is as clear as day in Afghanistan. A surge. Withdraw. A surge. Withdraw. Don't crush the enemy. If one does the game is over and the whole idea is to keep the game going to the point where people search out countries that have opposition and brand them Al Qaeda. Hell, the Patriot Act does that with US citizens except for using the actual name. Citizens can now be held indefinitely. The government has already won. Packing a pistol may protect you from every day citizens but it sure as hell is not protection against the government. It offers as much protection as this blanket.

images




Comforting? Maybe. Protection? :lol:
Click to expand...

They wanted Domestic tranquility? But that is the thing Libertarians hate the most! They feed on hate and blame. http://http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0307986969/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0307986969&linkCode=as2&tag=f0c0b-20
 
Anti-Party said:
So they put in place the 2nd Amendment that promised future Americans we would be allowed to have these tools, as long as they are well regulated, as long as we live in a free state.
Click to expand...

It simply DOESN'T mean that, and Madison demonstrated how it CAN'T POSSIBLY mean that, because idiots back in the day had the same exact misunderstanding of what it meant. "A well-regulated militia" has nothing to do with federal government regulation. The federal government is granted no such authority or power. We have an inalienable right to bear arms, it's not alienable by government or anything else, that's what "inalienable" means.

The Constitution says NOTHING about "as long as we live in a free state." I have no idea how you interpreted that. We have the inalienable right to bear arms, and government can't take that right from the people, nor can they infringe on that right with undue regulation or penalty. A "well regulated militia" is a militia that is maintained and outfitted with the best and most up-to-date equipment. That is the usage of the word "regulated" in this instance. I understand that "regulated" can mean other things, but that is not what Madison said the founding fathers meant, in Federalist 46. Furthermore, Madison goes on to explain it CAN'T mean what you want to infer, because government can't regulate something that is an inalienable right. If they could regulate it, then it wouldn't be a right, and certainly wouldn't be inalienable.
 
AppleTard: The purpose of the Constitution has to be understood before any accurate interpretation is possible and that's where the Preamble comes in. "It states in general terms, and courts have referred to it as reliable evidence of, the Founding Fathers' intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning and what they hoped the Constitution would achieve." That's crystal clear. So, what did they hope the Constitution would achieve?

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Obviously, they wanted a good life for the citizens. Domestic tranquility. Provide for the general welfare. Secure the Blessings of Liberty. That was their goal and anything that worked against that goal, especially anything that harms the citizens, was not something the Founding Fathers would have promoted. Surely even the most un-scholarly can grasp that.
Click to expand...

It doesn't say anything about "provide for the general welfare." They also didn't say anything was their "goal." Most anyone who is not an enemy of the state would naturally hope for all citizens to have a good life. To point out the Constitution supports this, is not a great monumental revelation, is it? The Constitution does not say it is government's responsibility to provide these things that make it a good life, or that it's the government's place to take from the rich and give to the poor.

Our right to bear arms doesn't "harm the citizens" but definite harm can come to citizens after they are disarmed. Such was the case at Wounded Knee.
 
Obama Hates America said:
Interesting you substituted the word provide for the word promote in the Preamble. I am sure even a dumb ass such as yourself would know they mean different things. Was it an oversight or were you deliberately trying to deceive?
Click to expand...

I copied and pasted the excerpt from the link. I changed nothing. Re-read it.
 
Dixie said:
It doesn't say anything about "provide for the general welfare." They also didn't say anything was their "goal." Most anyone who is not an enemy of the state would naturally hope for all citizens to have a good life. To point out the Constitution supports this, is not a great monumental revelation, is it? The Constitution does not say it is government's responsibility to provide these things that make it a good life, or that it's the government's place to take from the rich and give to the poor.

Our right to bear arms doesn't "harm the citizens" but definite harm can come to citizens after they are disarmed. Such was the case at Wounded Knee.
Click to expand...

Why do you and others have such reading difficulties? Here is what I posted.

(Excerpt)The purpose of the Constitution has to be understood before any accurate interpretation is possible and that's where the Preamble comes in. "It states in general terms, and courts have referred to it as reliable evidence of, the Founding Fathers' intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning and what they hoped the Constitution would achieve." That's crystal clear. So, what did they hope the Constitution would achieve?

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Obviously, they wanted a good life for the citizens. Domestic tranquility. Provide for the general welfare. Secure the Blessings of Liberty. That was their goal and anything that worked against that goal, especially anything that harms the citizens, was not something the Founding Fathers would have promoted. Surely even the most un-scholarly can grasp that. (End)

The excerpt, which I posted, clearly states "promote". As for nit-picking about the word "goal" re-read, "It states in general terms, and courts have referred to it as reliable evidence of, the Founding Fathers' intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning and what they hoped the Constitution would achieve."

The Founding Fathers intentions and what they hoped the Constitution would achieve. There is nothing inappropriate about using the word "goal".

As for the word "promote" governments pass laws to promote things. That's how it's done. They pass laws to promote safety and the Preamble makes it clear that is the government's role. That is the over-arching purpose of the Constitution.

"promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" That is the government's job and they do that by passing laws, laws like ObamaCare which help people get well so they can secure the blessings of liberty. They do that by regulating fire arms so people are not killed by lunatics which would prevent them from securing the blessings of liberty.

Whether or not the original idea/purpose was to arm the citizens to fight the State/Federal Government it doesn't matter. It's moot. The people can not fight the Federal Government by use of force. The entire Russian military couldn't over power the US government so to assume a rag-tag bunch of wackos like Jaeger could do so is insanity, plain and simple. Such craziness attracts the the borderline intelligent and the mentally ill. It's a substitution for their real lack of power and inability to fit into regular society. It's like kids who join gangs in order to feel they belong. They're real tough controlling a few city blocks until one of them commits a serious crime and ends up in jail, for years.

Grow up. Face reality.This lunacy about fighting the Federal Government and freeing the country is symptomatic of the delusions and hallucinations associated with schizophrenia.

I had a schizophrenic tenant, years ago. One day I was talking with his mother and she explained they were walking down the street and he wouldn't walk on the sidewalk that bordered a park because he saw a sign with the letter "P" and a line through it. In his mind the no-parking sign was letting him know he couldn't walk on the sidewalk as his name was Pierre. While it made complete sense to him obviously he was mentally ill.

The similarities between Pierre and those who point to a "sign" (a law, a statement) and claim the government is socialist/communist, going to put people in camps, etc. are startling.
 
http://americablog.com/2013/01/the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery.html

http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery

The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery

The real reason the Second Amendment was ratified, and why it says “State” instead of “Country” (the Framers knew the difference – see the 10th Amendment), was to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states, which was necessary to get Virginia’s vote [ratifying the Constitution itself]. Founders Patrick Henry, George Mason, and James Madison were totally clear on that . . . and we all should be too.

In the beginning, there were the militias. In the South, they were also called the “slave patrols,” and they were regulated by the states.

In Georgia, for example, a generation before the American Revolution, laws were passed in 1755 and 1757 that required all plantation owners or their male white employees to be members of the Georgia Militia, and for those armed militia members to make monthly inspections of the quarters of all slaves in the state. The law defined which counties had which armed militias and even required armed militia members to keep a keen eye out for slaves who may be planning uprisings.

As Dr. Carl T. Bogus wrote for the University of California Law Review in 1998, “The Georgia statutes required patrols, under the direction of commissioned militia officers, to examine every plantation each month and authorized them to search ‘all Negro Houses for offensive Weapons and Ammunition’ and to apprehend and give twenty lashes to any slave found outside plantation grounds.”

It’s the answer to the question raised by the character played by Leonardo DiCaprio in Django Unchained when he asks, “Why don’t they just rise up and kill the whites?” If the movie were real, it would have been a purely rhetorical question, because every southerner of the era knew the simple answer: Well regulated militias kept the slaves in chains.

The “well regulated state militias” of that day were busy:

lave rebellions were keeping the slave patrols busy. By the time the Constitution was ratified, hundreds of substantial slave uprisings had occurred across the South. Blacks outnumbered whites in large areas, and the state militias were used to both prevent and to put down slave uprisings. As Dr. Bogus points out, slavery can only exist in the context of a police state, and the enforcement of that police state was the explicit job of the militias.

And that need to maintain slave-hunting state militias was critical to the maintenance of the Southern aristocracy — just as was the creation of the explicitly anti-democratic U.S. Senate, by the way. But back to these militias; Hartmann again:

If the anti-slavery folks in the North had figured out a way to disband – or even move out of the state – those southern militias, the police state of the South would collapse. And, similarly, if the North were to invite into military service the slaves of the South, then they could be emancipated, which would collapse the institution of slavery, and the southern economic and social systems, altogether.

These two possibilities worried southerners like James Monroe, George Mason (who owned over 300 slaves) and the southern Christian evangelical, Patrick Henry (who opposed slavery on principle, but also opposed freeing slaves).

Their main concern was that Article 1, Section 8 of the newly-proposed Constitution, which gave the federal government the power to raise and supervise a militia, could also allow that federal militia to subsume their state militias and change them from slavery-enforcing institutions into something that could even, one day, free the slaves.

And there you have it. The federal power to raise and supervise its own militia threatened the existence of the state militias, and also gave the federal government a back-door way to free Southern slaves.




If you know a little history, hysterical right wing propaganda melts away into the puddle of piss that it is.
 
Crashk said:
http://americablog.com/2013/01/the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery.html

http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery

The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery

The real reason the Second Amendment was ratified, and why it says “State” instead of “Country” (the Framers knew the difference – see the 10th Amendment), was to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states, which was necessary to get Virginia’s vote [ratifying the Constitution itself]. Founders Patrick Henry, George Mason, and James Madison were totally clear on that . . . and we all should be too.

In the beginning, there were the militias. In the South, they were also called the “slave patrols,” and they were regulated by the states.

In Georgia, for example, a generation before the American Revolution, laws were passed in 1755 and 1757 that required all plantation owners or their male white employees to be members of the Georgia Militia, and for those armed militia members to make monthly inspections of the quarters of all slaves in the state. The law defined which counties had which armed militias and even required armed militia members to keep a keen eye out for slaves who may be planning uprisings.

As Dr. Carl T. Bogus wrote for the University of California Law Review in 1998, “The Georgia statutes required patrols, under the direction of commissioned militia officers, to examine every plantation each month and authorized them to search ‘all Negro Houses for offensive Weapons and Ammunition’ and to apprehend and give twenty lashes to any slave found outside plantation grounds.”

It’s the answer to the question raised by the character played by Leonardo DiCaprio in Django Unchained when he asks, “Why don’t they just rise up and kill the whites?” If the movie were real, it would have been a purely rhetorical question, because every southerner of the era knew the simple answer: Well regulated militias kept the slaves in chains.

The “well regulated state militias” of that day were busy:

lave rebellions were keeping the slave patrols busy. By the time the Constitution was ratified, hundreds of substantial slave uprisings had occurred across the South. Blacks outnumbered whites in large areas, and the state militias were used to both prevent and to put down slave uprisings. As Dr. Bogus points out, slavery can only exist in the context of a police state, and the enforcement of that police state was the explicit job of the militias.

And that need to maintain slave-hunting state militias was critical to the maintenance of the Southern aristocracy — just as was the creation of the explicitly anti-democratic U.S. Senate, by the way. But back to these militias; Hartmann again:

If the anti-slavery folks in the North had figured out a way to disband – or even move out of the state – those southern militias, the police state of the South would collapse. And, similarly, if the North were to invite into military service the slaves of the South, then they could be emancipated, which would collapse the institution of slavery, and the southern economic and social systems, altogether.

These two possibilities worried southerners like James Monroe, George Mason (who owned over 300 slaves) and the southern Christian evangelical, Patrick Henry (who opposed slavery on principle, but also opposed freeing slaves).

Their main concern was that Article 1, Section 8 of the newly-proposed Constitution, which gave the federal government the power to raise and supervise a militia, could also allow that federal militia to subsume their state militias and change them from slavery-enforcing institutions into something that could even, one day, free the slaves.

And there you have it. The federal power to raise and supervise its own militia threatened the existence of the state militias, and also gave the federal government a back-door way to free Southern slaves.




If you know a little history, hysterical right wing propaganda melts away into the puddle of piss that it is.
Click to expand...


A most descriptive and elegant way to phrase it. :)
 
another Germany ??? 2nd

Dear Gun huggers, and other assorted cowards too afraid without weapon, You tools are so wrong, so off the wall, so scaredy cat, it is a sad commentary on the lack of brains in America. Gun nuts think the second amendment allows psychopaths access to weapons to massacre men, women, and children and defend that access as a constitutional right.

"In 1991, Warren E. Burger, the conservative chief justice of the Supreme Court, was interviewed on the MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour about the meaning of the Second Amendment's "right to keep and bear arms." Burger answered that the Second Amendment "has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud--I repeat the word 'fraud'--on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime." In a speech in 1992, Burger declared that "the Second Amendment doesn't guarantee the right to have firearms at all. "In his view, the purpose of the Second Amendment was "to ensure that the 'state armies'--'the militia'--would be maintained for the defense of the state." Cass R. Sunstein, “The Most Mysterious Right,” National Review http://72.52.208.92/~gbpprorg/obama/Cass_Sunstein_Quotes.pdf



'The Hitler gun control lie'

"Unfortunately for LaPierre et al., the notion that Hitler confiscated everyone’s guns is mostly bogus. And the ancillary claim that Jews could have stopped the Holocaust with more guns doesn’t make any sense at all if you think about it for more than a minute.

University of Chicago law professor Bernard Harcourt explored this myth in depth in a 2004 article published in the Fordham Law Review. As it turns out, the Weimar Republic, the German government that immediately preceded Hitler’s, actually had tougher gun laws than the Nazi regime. After its defeat in World War I, and agreeing to the harsh surrender terms laid out in the Treaty of Versailles, the German legislature in 1919 passed a law that effectively banned all private firearm possession, leading the government to confiscate guns already in circulation. In 1928, the Reichstag relaxed the regulation a bit, but put in place a strict registration regime that required citizens to acquire separate permits to own guns, sell them or carry them."

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/11/stop_talking_about_hitler/

Besides, Omer Bartov, a historian at Brown University who studies the Third Reich, notes that the Jews probably wouldn’t have had much success fighting back. “Just imagine the Jews of Germany exercising the right to bear arms and fighting the SA, SS and the Wehrmacht. The [Russian] Red Army lost 7 million men fighting the Wehrmacht, despite its tanks and planes and artillery. The Jews with pistols and shotguns would have done better?” he told Salon."



"The logic is inexorable: as more private individuals acquire guns, the power of the police declines, personal security becomes more a matter of self-help, and the unarmed have an increasing incentive to get guns, until everyone is armed. When most citizens then have the ability to kill anyone in their vicinity in an instant, everyone is less secure than they would be if no one had guns other than the members of a democratically accountable police force.

The logic of private gun possession is thus similar to that of the nuclear arms race. When only one state gets nuclear weapons, it enhances its own security but reduces that of others, which have become more vulnerable. The other states then have an incentive to get nuclear weapons to try to restore their security. As more states get them, the incentives for others increase. If eventually all get them, the potential for catastrophe — whether through irrationality, misperception, or accident — is great. Each state’s security is then much lower than it would be if none had nuclear weapons." http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/19/why-gun-control-is-not-enough/
 
SmarterthanYou said:
pure fantasy horseshit
Click to expand...

If the anti-slavery folks in the North had figured out a way to disband - or even move out of the state - those southern militias, the police state of the South would collapse. And, similarly, if the North were to invite into military service the slaves of the South, then they could be emancipated, which would collapse the institution of slavery, and the southern economic and social systems, altogether.

These two possibilities worried southerners like James Monroe, George Mason (who owned over 300 slaves) and the southern Christian evangelical, Patrick Henry (who opposed slavery on principle, but also opposed freeing slaves).

Their main concern was that Article 1, Section 8 of the newly-proposed Constitution, which gave the federal government the power to raise and supervise a militia, could also allow that federal militia to subsume their state militias and change them from slavery-enforcing institutions into something that could even, one day, free the slaves.

This was not an imagined threat. Famously, 12 years earlier, during the lead-up to the Revolutionary War, Lord Dunsmore offered freedom to slaves who could escape and join his forces. "Liberty to Slaves" was stitched onto their jacket pocket flaps. During the War, British General Henry Clinton extended the practice in 1779. And numerous freed slaves served in General Washington's army...

So Madison, who had (at Jefferson's insistence) already begun to prepare proposed amendments to the Constitution, changed his first draft of one that addressed the militia issue to make sure it was unambiguous that the southern states could maintain their slave patrol militias.

His first draft for what became the Second Amendment had said: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country [emphasis mine]: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."

But Henry, Mason and others wanted southern states to preserve their slave-patrol militias independent of the federal government. So Madison changed the word "country" to the word "state," and redrafted the Second Amendment into today's form:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


Little did Madison realize that one day in the future weapons-manufacturing corporations, newly defined as "persons" by a Supreme Court some have called dysfunctional, would use his slave patrol militia amendment to protect their "right" to manufacture and sell assault weapons used to murder schoolchildren.

http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery

Fantasy? Fantasy is believing right wing corporate propaganda.
 
Crashk said:
Fantasy? Fantasy is believing right wing corporate propaganda.
Click to expand...
and idiocy is believing the left wing statist propaganda.

I repeat, it is the height of stupidity to believe that the founding fathers would write an amendment guaranteeing ONLY a standing armies right to bear arms after they had just won their independence from an oppressive government with a standing army.
 
apple0154 said:
Why do you and others have such reading difficulties? Here is what I posted.

(Excerpt)The purpose of the Constitution has to be understood before any accurate interpretation is possible and that's where the Preamble comes in. "It states in general terms, and courts have referred to it as reliable evidence of, the Founding Fathers' intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning and what they hoped the Constitution would achieve." That's crystal clear. So, what did they hope the Constitution would achieve?

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Obviously, they wanted a good life for the citizens. Domestic tranquility. Provide for the general welfare. Secure the Blessings of Liberty. That was their goal and anything that worked against that goal, especially anything that harms the citizens, was not something the Founding Fathers would have promoted. Surely even the most un-scholarly can grasp that. (End)

The excerpt, which I posted, clearly states "promote". As for nit-picking about the word "goal" re-read, "It states in general terms, and courts have referred to it as reliable evidence of, the Founding Fathers' intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning and what they hoped the Constitution would achieve."
Click to expand...

Then why the fuck did you say "Provide for the general welfare?" No, Apple, the court has never upheld YOUR definition of the Constitution. There is no mention of a "goal" and there is no "hope it will achieve" language either. The Constitution lays out the structure for our government, and it delegates specific authorities to that government, which are needed in order to form a more perfect union of states. It explicitly says that the federal government does NOT have unlimited power, or that it has ANY power over the people and states, other than the specific enumerations in the Constitution.

The rest of what you posted, (and you can post it over and over again), is blather. Mind you, it's not as offensive and ignorant as what Crashk posted, but it's still blather. The 2nd Amendment had NOTHING to do with slavery or "slave militias" or anything of the like, it's more hyped up left wing RHETORIC thrown out there like red meat to the gullible and stupid masses, who are too fucking ignorant to comprehend things like the Constitution. What these miscreants have discovered is, you can repeat ANY NONSENSE enough, and certain people will go to the grave believing it as TRUTH!
 
Dixie said:
It simply DOESN'T mean that, and Madison demonstrated how it CAN'T POSSIBLY mean that, because idiots back in the day had the same exact misunderstanding of what it meant. "A well-regulated militia" has nothing to do with federal government regulation. The federal government is granted no such authority or power. We have an inalienable right to bear arms, it's not alienable by government or anything else, that's what "inalienable" means.

The Constitution says NOTHING about "as long as we live in a free state." I have no idea how you interpreted that. We have the inalienable right to bear arms, and government can't take that right from the people, nor can they infringe on that right with undue regulation or penalty. A "well regulated militia" is a militia that is maintained and outfitted with the best and most up-to-date equipment. That is the usage of the word "regulated" in this instance. I understand that "regulated" can mean other things, but that is not what Madison said the founding fathers meant, in Federalist 46. Furthermore, Madison goes on to explain it CAN'T mean what you want to infer, because government can't regulate something that is an inalienable right. If they could regulate it, then it wouldn't be a right, and certainly wouldn't be inalienable.
Click to expand...

Ah, how cute. He doesn't know that the Constitution is a FEDERAL document. So yes, it FEDERALLY says we must regulate gun ownership. Because with regulation, we will always have the right to bear arms. Without regulation, what we have been seeing lately since Bush and the NRA have corrupted the system, we see very dangerous tools in the hands of the wrong people.

No regulation is the only threat to gun ownership.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top